Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Midwest Granite Priavate Limited vs The Government Of A.P. Rep. By The ... on 29 April, 2013
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.652 of 2010 29.04.2013 Midwest Granite Priavate Limited ...PETITIONER The Government of A.P. rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri T.Sridhar Counsel for the respondents 1to 3: G.P. for Industries and Commerce. ^Counsel for the respondent 4: Smt. N.Sobha ?Cases referred: 1 2011(1)ALD 1 2 AIR 1983 SC 1239 3 AIR 1967 SC 295 4 AIR 1952 SC 16 5 AIR 1963 SC 507 6 AIR 1974 SC 555 7 AIR 1968 SC 13 8 (2009) 12 SCC 748 ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings bearing No.7632/R6-1/2005 dt 30-12-2009 of 2nd respondent and Memo No.6977/M.11(1)/2009-3 dt 28.10.2009 of 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, unjust and unconstitutional.
2. The brief facts leading to the lis are set out hereunder :
3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in mining activity particularly with natural stone and minerals. It was granted Prospecting Licence for black granite vide proceedings No.6883/R2-1/2005 dt 4-5-2002 of the 2nd respondent for a period of two years in respect of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapalli Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District.
The said Prospecting Licence was given to petitioner on the basis of a classification report L.Dis.No.A/160/95 dt 24.1.1995 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesamudram Mandal submitted to the Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Warangal, stating that the said Survey No.15 is Government Poramboke land of total extent of Ac.78.01, that Ac.3.00 therein is unassigned land covered with hills and rocks and that it is free from encroachment. The petitioner undertook prospecting operations over the said land to establish mineral resource and also submitted a prospecting report incurring consideration expenditure. The said report confirmed the deposit of black granite mineral in the above land.
4. Petitioner contended it applied for grant of quarry lease over the said land and paid the requisite sum on 11.11.2004 and also submitted an application on the same date, that its application was misplaced in the office of the 3rd respondent and was eventually traced only on 17.11.2004. It is not disputed that petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease is the first application in point of time. Petitioner contends that under Rule 12(5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), it is entitled to preference over subsequent applicants.
5. The 4th respondent herein is a firm with one B. Suryam as its Managing Partner and it also applied for grant of quarry lease on 10.2.2005 in respect of 2.00 Hects., in Sy.No.15/1 and 15/10 of Arpanapalli Village, Kesamudram Mandal of Warangal District.
6. The 3rd respondent thereafter submitted proposals to 2nd respondent on 16.7.2008 vide letter no.679/Q/05 stating that petitioner was earlier holding a Prospecting Licence from 13.8.2002 to 12.8.2004, that the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued "No Objection Certificate" dated 24.1.1995 that an extent of Ac.3.00 in Survey No.15 of Arpanapally village is Government Poramboke land, unassigned and covered with hills and rocks; that petitioner also submitted a prospecting report along with its quarry lease application filed on 17.2.2004; that 4th respondent submitted an application for grant of quarry lease on 10.2.2005 in Sy.Nos.15/1 and 15/10 of Arpanapalli Village for black granite over an extent of 2 hectares; that 4th respondent has also taken consent from the pattedar and occupants by name Mandali Mallaiah, Akula Rajaiah and Narella Upendra for quarrying black granite and to extract the black granite from their lands; that Tahsildar had issued "No Objection Certificate" dated 25.7.2005 to 4th respondent in respect of its proposal and also mentioned that three persons mentioned above were assignees and pattedars/occupants of the said land; area for which 4th respondent may be recommended is an extent of Ac.3.35 gts or 1.566 Hectares as against 2 Hectares sought by them; the claim of petitioner is not valid; and that claim of the 4th respondent has to be taken into consideration for grant of quarry lease. He also stated that District Collector, Warangal vide his proceedings in Lr.No.Rc.No.C4/2119/06 dt. 18.5.2006 had stated that as per his enquiry, status of land in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapalli village is confirmed as "Government assigned land" and recommended for grant of lease in favour of 4th respondent; the Supervisor in office of Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal had surveyed and demarcated the applied area of petitioner and 4th respondent on 19.4.2008 along with Royalty Inspector O/o Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal and submitted a report stating that the survey and demarcated area of 4th respondent is overlapping with the applied area of the petitioner. He therefore submitted applications of petitioner and 4th respondent to 2nd respondent for suitable action in the matter.
7. On 29.9.2008, a show cause notice was issued by 2nd respondent to petitioner to show cause as to why it's quarry lease application shall not be rejected on the ground that the application of 4th respondent was recommended on the ground that he was a Schedule Tribe by Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Secretary to government, Social Welfare Department and Honourable Minister for Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh; the District Collector, Warangal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubabad and Mandal Revenue Officer have stated that the area in Sy.No.15 is Government Assigned land and the 4th respondent had obtained consent of assignees and the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology has also recommended grant of mining lease to 4th respondent.
8. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice vide letter dt. 13.11.2008 requesting the 2nd respondent to drop the action proposed and to grant quarry lease for black granite in its favour stating that the 2nd respondent had already granted Prospecting Licence in its favour in the year 2002; that they had submitted Prospecting Licence Report and also filed quarry lease application on 17.2.2004 prior to that of the 4th respondent and that as per Rule 12(5)(b) of the above Rules, it's prior application would have priority over 4th respondent's application.
9. In the mean time, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 20.5.2009 to 1st respondent stating that 3rd respondent had given consent for quarrying of black granite in favour of 4th respondent, that Director of Tribal Welfare in his letters dt.4.2.2008 and 23.3.2008 had forwarded the representation of 4th respondent for immediate process without further loss of time as the 4th respondent is a Schedule Tribe and deserves encouragement in development; the Secretary to the Government Social Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in its memo dated 7.2.2008 also forwarded the representation of the 4th respondent and requested to examine the representation and to consider favorably under intimation to the Government; the Hon'ble Minister for Tribal Welfare also forwarded the representation of the 4th respondent and requested the 2nd respondent to issue necessary orders; the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry licence was made on 17.11.2004 which is not within the period of three months from the date of expiry of the Prospecting Licence; that the petitioner had not furnished the consent of the pattedars whereas the 4th respondent had furnished the consent of the assigned tribal pattedars; and as per the first proviso of Sub Rule (5)(b) of Rule 12 of the above Rules, he can grant Prospecting Licence or quarrying licence to an application whose application is received later in preference to the earlier application for reasons to be recorded in writing; and therefore requested the 1st respondent to accord approval to 4th respondent to grant quarry lease over an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapally village overlooking the priority of the petitioner.
10. Thereupon a Memo No.II(I)2009-3 dt 28.10.2009 was issued by the 1st respondent according permission under Rule 12(5)(b) of the above Rules for grant of quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent over an extent of Ac.3.00 acres in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapalli village by overlooking the prior application of the petitioner.
11. Basing on the said memo issued by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dt. 20.12.2009 granting quarry lease for black granite over an extent of Ac.3.35 hectares in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapalli village for a period of 20 years in favour of the 4th respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner.
12. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
13. Heard Sri T. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, and Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the Government memo dated 28.10.2009 according permission under Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules granting quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent by overlooking the prior application of the petitioner and consequent order dated 30.12.2009 of the 2nd respondent are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India; grant of quarry lease in respect of the above land to 4th respondent is influenced by extraneous considerations and irrelevant reasons are given in the above proceedings for favoring the 4th respondent; under statute discretion for grant of licence is regulated by Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules and 2nd respondent has to exercise the power under the said proviso for valid reasons keeping in view the priorities mentioned in the proviso to the said rule; the District Collector, Warangal or the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretary to government, Social Welfare Department or the Honourable Minister for Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh have no business to interfere with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the 2nd respondent in relation to grant of quarry lease and recommend the case of 4th respondent ; 4th respondent is admittedly a subsequent applicant for grant of quarry lease as its application is later to that of petitioner; respondents 1 and 2 by acting on the basis of the recommendations of the said officials and Minister have abdicated their powers and acted under the dictation of said officials/authorities; it cannot be said that 4th respondent is a Scheduled Tribe as it is a firm and B. Suryam is only it's Managing Partner; respondents 1-3 without application of mind have acted as if 4th respondent is an individual who belongs to Schedule Tribe community; a firm is an association of individuals and even if one of its partners happens to be a person belonging to Schedule Tribe, no preference can be given to the firm; in any event under the first proviso to Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules, special reasons have to be recorded for giving preference to a later application and the fact that the person who applied subsequent to the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe community cannot be said to be a special reason justifying overlooking the priority of petitioner; respondents 1 to 3 ought to have seen that the petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease in respect of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.15 of Arpanapally village on 17.11.2004; adangal relating to this Survey Number for the year 2008-09 also shows that an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in sy. No.15 is Government Poramboke land and is in possession of the Government only; Although there are assignees in respect of other sub divisions in the said survey number, there are no assignees in Sy.No.15; as per BSO 15, Government Poramboke lands cannot be assigned; Even if the land could be assigned ,it is not for the assignees to dictate as to who shall do quarrying in the land which is assigned to them; the adangal in respect of Sy.No.15 indicates that three persons Mandali Mallaiah, Akula Rajaiah, Narella Upendra from whom 4th respondent had obtained consent are assignees of land in sub-divisions in the same survey number and not the land in respect of which the petitioner has filed quarry lease application; in any event, assuming that they are assignees of land as mentioned in the impugned order dt 30.12.2009, they had given their consent for quarrying of black granite and once there is consent , the petitioner can be granted quarry lease for the said land; the respondents 1-3 cannot contend that the said consent was given in favour of the 4th respondent and therefore the 4th respondent alone can do quarry operations in the said land; if such stand is accepted it would amount to conferring discretion on the assignees to choose who can do quarrying in the lands in their occupation and such view is not countenanced by the Act or the Rules; and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set side.
15. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 relying on the averments in para-3 of the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesamudram vide his letter dt 4.1.1995 reported that the land in Sy.No.15 of Arpanpally Village is classified as Government Poramboke land having total extent of Ac.78.01 gts.; out of the said area Ac.3.00 gts of land is unassigned and covered with hill and rocks and it is free from encroachment; but he contended that orders passed by the 1st respondent on 28.10.2009 and by the 2nd respondent on 30.12.2009 are valid and correct because the Pattedars and occupants of the land had given consent in favour of 4th respondent; and there is nothing wrong in granting quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent. He also contends that the petitioner did not furnish consent of the Pattedars whereas the 4th respondent has furnished consent of the Pattedars/occupants; that the application of petitioner for grant of quarry lease was filed on 17.11.2004 and the same is not filed within 3 months from the date of expiry of grant of Prospecting Licence; and so the petitioner is not entitled for any preference under second proviso to Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules. Learned Government Pleader further contends that the petitioner should have filed a Revision Application as per Rule 35(A) of the Rules before the Government; and in view of the fact that petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of revision, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. He sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the 4th respondent while supporting the contentions of the Government Pleader contended that land in Sy.No.15 of Arpanpally village even if it is a Government Poramboke land, it is assigned in favour of several persons and 4th respondent had applied for quarry lease on 10.2.2005 for 2 hectares in Sy.Nos.15/1 and 15/10 of Arpanpally Village after obtaining consent from pattedars/occupants; as Managing Partner of 4th respondent belongs to Schedule Tribe community the priority need not be given to petitioner and 4th respondent can be preferred for grant of quarry lease.
17. I have noted the contentions of the respective parties.
18. Rule 12(5) (b) of the Rules states as follows :
"Rule 12(5) (b) The application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. for granite and marble shall be disposed off by the Director in the order of their receipt. Whenever, more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant licence or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing:
Provided that the Director may grant a P.L. or Q.L. to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to earlier application with the prior approval of the government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing.
Provided further that where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land the Licensee shall have preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of that land over any other person in case he has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and submitted a prospecting report in respect of such land and submitted quarry lease application within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period and such right can be exercised only once over the entire prospected area."
19. This Court in Ch.V. Girish v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, while interpreting the Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rule at para-10 has held as follows :
" In the light of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the applications for grant of mining lease for granite shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. Further, as per proviso, the Director of Mines and Geology is empowered to grant prospecting licence or quarry lease to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to an earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Under the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, consent of the local Gram Panchayat for grant of lease to a particular applicant is alien to the Rules. Even with regard to poramboke land, which vests with the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat may have a limited say, but there cannot be any authority or power vested in the Gram Panchayat under the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the Rules made thereunder to recommend for grant of lease in favour of a particular individual applicant on the ground that, that particular individual is local and others are not. Special reasons which are required to be recorded in writing by the Government to approve the proposals of the Director of Mines and Geology as contemplated under 12(5)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 to overlook the priority applications should be valid and sound reasons, in furtherance of the object and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. Any reason which runs contrary to the provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be considered as a special reason within the meaning of the aforesaid proviso, to enable the Government to approve the proposals of the Director of Mines and Geology, for overlooking priority of applications. From a perusal of the impugned order and also the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, it is clear that the application of the Petitioner is at the earliest point of time and in view of Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules, the Director of Mines and Geology has to dispose of the applications in the order of their receipt. The reason, namely that the Petitioner is a non-local is an irrelevant reason which runs contrary to the restriction imposed under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. When the provision in the substantive legislation restricts the State Government to grant mining lease to Indian Nationals, it is not open to the State Government to make a distinction between the applicants of the District, where the land which is the subject-matter of the applications is located and the applicants outside that District. Such distinction is not only illegal and arbitrary but also runs contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 apart from infraction of equality Clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India".(emphasis mine)
20. In the present case admittedly the petitioner's application was submitted on 17.11.2004 and it is prior in point of time to that of 4th respondent which is admittedly made on 10.2.2005. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was previously granted Prospecting Licence for the period from 13.8.2002 to 12.8.2004 and that Prospecting Licence was granted on the basis of "No Objection Certificate" dated 24.9.1995 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesamudram addressed to the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Warangal stating that Sy.No.15 is a Government Poramboke Land having total extent Ac.78.01 gts that out of the said area Ac.3.00 gts is unassigned covered with hills and rocks and is available, free from encroachments. The "Adangal" relating to Sy.No.15 for the year 2008- 09 (filed by the petitioner along with his rejoinder) clearly shows that an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in the said survey number is Poramboke Land and in the occupation of the Government. In the said "Adangal" other portions of the said survey number were shown to be have been assigned to several parties including Mandala Mallaiah in Sy.No.15/1/7; Akula Rajaiah in Sy.No.15/1/10 and Negelli Upendra in Sy.No.15/1/A. Learned Government Pleader has fairly stated that the proceedings dt 24.1.1995 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kesamudram is correct. Admittedly the petitioner has sought quarry lease in respect of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.15, and as this is Government Poramboke Land, under Board Standing Orders No. 15 such Poramboke Land is prohibited for assignment. This legal position is not disputed by any of the parties.
21. It is true that the 4th respondent had applied for quarry lease on 10.2.2005 for 2 hectares in Sy.Nos.15/1 and 15/10 and according to the respondents he had also obtained consent from three assignees i.e. Mandala Mallaiah, Akula Rajaiah and Negelli Upendra, who were said to be in occupation in Sy.No.15. It is also not disputed that the above three persons have given consent for quarrying operations in favour of the 4th respondent. The report of the Assistant Director, Mines and Genology, Warangal dt 16.7.2008 states that surveyed and demarcated area of the 4th respondent is overlapping with the applied area of the petitioner.
22. In my opinion, the petitioner's application is for an extent of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.15, which is undisputedly a Government Poramboke Land in which there is no assignment and assuming that the above three individuals are in possession of this land, they have also given consent for quarrying operations although it is in favour of the 4th respondent. Law does not contemplate that assignee of a Government land has a right to choose who can do quarrying operations in the land assigned to him. It is not for the assignee to dictate to the State as to who should do quarrying operations and choice of the assignee cannot be the criteria to decide the person to whom the quarrying licence has to be granted. The respondents 1-3 were also influenced by the fact that the alleged assignees of the land choose the 4th respondent and the petitioner did not get any consent from them .Thus the respondents 1 and 2 have taken into account a totally irrelevant fact while deciding the question of grant of quarrying lease.
23. The respondents also treated the 4th respondent as a person belonging to the Schedule Tribe erroneously forgetting the fact the 4th respondent is a firm. Mere fact that the one of the partners of the firm (maybe the Managing Partner) happens to be a person belonging to a Schedule Tribe cannot lead to an inference that the firm can be treated as "Schedule Tribe". Thus there is clear non- application of mind by the respondents 1 and 2. In Mansaram v. S.P.Pathak2, the Supreme Court held that the non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authority to the most relevant point which goes to the root of the matter completely vitiates it's order.
24. In any event even if 4th respondent is a Schedule Tribe, it cannot be a "special reason" to overlook the claim of petitioner who had applied first in point of time and is entitled to priority under Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules. As stated by this Court in Ch.V.Girish's case (1 supra) the special reasons as contemplated by Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules to overlook the principle of first come first served should be valid and sound reasons, in furtherance of the object and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder. The fact that 4th respondent is a Schedule Tribe is an irrelevant reason on the basis of which the priority of the petitioner could not have been overlooked by the respondents 1 to 3. This also vitiates the orders of the respondents 1 and 2.
25. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board3, the Company Law Board ordered an investigation into the affairs of the appellant company under s.236 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the section, the Board can order investigation into the affairs of a company if, in the opinion of the board, there are circumstances suggesting (i) that the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, or members, etc.; (ii) that the persons concerned in the formation of the company or its management have been guilty of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the company or any of its members; (iii) that the members of the company have not given full information about the affairs of the company. The basis of the order of investigation was that there had been delay and faulty planning of the project resulting in double expenditure and continuous losses to the company, that the value of its shares had gone down considerably and that some eminent persons had resigned from the board of directors. The court, by a majority, quashed the order of the Government as these facts had no relevance to the question of fraud by the company. Thus, taking into account irrelevant facts while exercising statutory power renders the exercise of such power bad in law.
26. The respondents 1 to 3 have been strongly influenced by the recommendations of the District Collector, Warangal, Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Minister for Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in granting quarry lease in favour of the 4th respondent.
27. In Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji4, the Bombay Police Act, 1902 granted authority to the Commissioner of Police to grant licences for the construction of cinema-theatres. The Commissioner granted a licence to the respondent therein on the recommendation of an advisory committee but later cancelled it at the direction of the State Government. The court held the cancellation order bad as it had come from the Government and the Commissioner merely acted as a transmitting agent.
28. In State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash5, the Supreme Court held that the appellant State Government could not give any instruction to the consolidation officer functioning under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as there was no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to give any such instructions to the consolidation officer.
29. Under the scheme of the statute none of the persons mentioned in para 26 supra have any role to play in the decision relating to grant of quarry lease. Respondents 1 to 3 had acted under dictation of the above authorities and abdicated their statutory power while deciding to grant quarry lease to the 4th respondent. Exercise of power by the respondents 1 and 2 is therefore clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be sustained.
30. As held in E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu6 :
"85. ... ... ... Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant bus is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts.14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice : in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Arts.14 and 6."
31. Regarding the contention of the Government Pleader that the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of revision to the State Government against the order dt 30.12.2009 of the 2nd respondent, the said contention cannot be countenanced as scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and it is not an effective way of remedy barring exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.226 (Collector of Customs v. A.S.Bava7). In any event it is settled law that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. (Mohd.Izam v. S.Kazam Pasha8)
32. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the 1st respondent in Memo No.6977/M.11(1)/2009-3 dt. 28.10.2009 and also the proceedings No.7632/R6-1/2005 dt 30.12.2009 of the 2nd respondent are declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in S.No.15 of Arpanapalli Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District to conduct quarrying operations for Black Granite after completing the necessary formalities.
33. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed with costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Dt.29-04-2013